Building Bridges? - Expectations and Experiences of Child Contact Centres in Scotland

BUILDING BRIDGES? - EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCES OF CHILD CONTACT CENTRES IN SCOTLAND

CHAPTER THREE CHILD CONTACT CENTRE PROVISION AND USAGE IN SCOTLAND

3.1 The provision of child contact centres across Scotland is variable. In this chapter the range of provision offered at the time of the research, and families using that provision, are reported. These findings are drawn from data collected during stage one of this research in combination with earlier findings from the two previous phases of child contact centre research conducted by the Scottish Executive.

THE NATURE OF CHILD CONTACT CENTRE PROVISION IN SCOTLAND

3.2 During the period of this research study there were 28 contact centres in operation across Scotland. Although earlier research into contact centre provision had been conducted by the Executive in the first stage of the research, the changing nature of funding and support for centres indicated that a full update of provision was required at the outset of this project.

3.3 The audit of contact centres undertaken in the first stage of the research sought to map the range of child contact centre provision being offered across Scotland. It was hoped that this exercise would identify models of contact centre provision, focusing on dimensions such as the facilities offered, number of staff and volume of cases. Similar data was sought on the families making use of centres, and in relation to referral patterns. It was hoped that models of provision and usage which could classify centres on a multi-dimensional basis would prove to be a useful tool for the design and conduct of the qualitative study. Identifying models would assist the research team in ensuring that the full diversity of contact centre provision could be explored through in-depth research focused on a smaller number of contact centres, their staff and users. However, the audit of provision and usage revealed that there were no discrete models of provision by which contact centres could be classified sensibly.

3.4 As this section focuses on reporting findings from an audit of all contact centres operating in Scotland during 2001, quantitative terms and language are used with validity. Later sections report upon findings from qualitative research with a sample of centres and therefore do not have the same statistical inference as the data derived from the centre audit.

Location, funding and size of contact centres

3.5 Contact centre provision across Scotland was found to differ in relation to the geographical location of centres, the funding and management of centres and their size. Each of these issues is discussed below.

3.6 Contact centres in Scotland were predominantly located in, or near to, urban centres. There were few exceptions to this. Similarly, the majority of centres were located in the Borders or the south, east and west Lothian regions. As a result large areas of the country were not served by contact centres within their local communities; this was particularly true for the upper Western and middle belt of Scotland. The exceptions to this were two of the Scottish isles where local contact centres were situated.

3.7 The centres themselves were all organised and led by voluntary organisations or bodies. The largest single provider of contact centres is Family Mediation; other providing organisations include the WRVS and smaller voluntary organisations such as church based organisations and local family support organisations. Centres varied in the length of time they had been providing contact services from less than a year to almost twelve years.

3.8 Contact centres are funded in a variety of ways. The following list demonstrates the range of different funding sources relied upon by the centres. The sources are :

Family Mediation Services
local authority grants
local authority social work department grants
charitable donations and grants (from a range of national and local bodies)
centre based fundraising
individual funding

3.9 It was not unusual for a single centre to be funded by a combination of the above sources. For example, rental costs for the premises for the centre might be paid for through the use of a central government or local authority grant, as might the services of a paid volunteer co-ordinator. The same centre might then rely upon its own fundraising or small charitable grants to acquire, update and expand its toy library.

3.10 The size of centres can be described according to a variety of different factors, for example physical facilities, number of staff or volume of use. For the purposes of the audit, centres were classified by the number of staff and volume of cases. Staffing issues are dealt with below.

3.11 Centres varied in the volume of cases they had listed at the time of the audit. The lowest number of families recorded was one, whilst the highest was 28. The varying volume of cases was directly linked to the location of the centre. Urban centres recorded higher volumes than those located in rural areas. Although some large urban centres recorded lower numbers this could be attributed to the fact that these cities have more than one centre serving the local area, when taken in combination the total number of cases across the city reflects higher volumes of cases than those in rural areas.

Physical features and types of contact

3.12 Due to the diverse nature of the organisations providing centre services, and their individual needs, centre facilities and service provision varied.

3.13 Centres were commonly located in buildings or venues owned or controlled by other organisations. Centre venues tended, therefore, to be used primarily for purposes other than providing contact. The one exception to this was a primary centre in a major urban location, this centre was open on most days and its primary function was to provide contact. In contrast, other centres shared their locations with a variety of different providers including: family mediation, play centres, nursery schools and churches. Nevertheless, it was exceptional to find that centres did not have a dedicated space within the location they used which generally meant that volunteers were not required to remove toys, posters and other facilities from their space at the end of sessions.

3.14 Physical provision varied between centres, whilst some offered an open plan contact venue, others had access to more than one room for contact to take place and some provided access to private rooms for families to use during contact centres. Facilities within the contact venue also varied, in some a wide variety of toys, activities (for example pool tables), computers and TVs were available, and others had more basic toys and activities. Whilst some centres had access to outside spaces (both private gardens or yards and close public park areas) others did not. Physical access to the centres varied, with a number being located on the first or second floor of a building. This was highlighted as a problem for parents using pushchairs, and clearly has implications for disabled users.

3.15 The range of facilities available was largely determined by the accommodation provided through the host organisation. For example, in some centres certain rooms remained locked during contact sessions and were not made available to centre users, others were restricted by funding available to them in relation to buying toys and games. In some cases physical facilities were constrained by the design of the venue, for example, some venues had only one room available.

3.16 Centres described themselves as providing two main types of contact:

contact within the centre - centres described this contact, during the mapping exercise, as 'supported' and 'supervised' (however, centres do not actually provide supervised contact, although they will sometimes facilitate it by providing the venue for it to take place)
facilities for exchange or handover for contact sessions outwith the centre. This included facilitating handover for weekly or bi-weekly contact sessions outwith the centre as well as providing similar facilities for handover where children would be spending overnight residential visits with their contact parent.

3.17 Chapter 4 provides a detailed discussion of the different forms of contact provided by centres and also explores the differing interpretations of terms such as supported and supervised contact.

3.18 Sessions were predominantly held at weekends, mainly on Saturdays either during the morning or afternoon. The dominant pattern was the provision of contact sessions lasting between two and four hours. Some centres offered similar provision but only on alternate Saturdays. Fewer centres were able to offer more flexible or extensive provision. For example, one centre offered daily weekday access to the centre during morning sessions, another centre stated that its provision responded to user need and where possible staff would facilitate contact as and when required by user families.

3.19 Whilst the families using contact centres predominantly resided in close proximity to the centre, geographical range varied depending upon the specific circumstances of individual families. For example, where a contact parent lived some distance from the centre then they frequently travelled large distances for contact sessions.

Staffing

3.20 Contact centres were largely staffed by volunteers during sessions. Nevertheless, almost all centres employed one, or more than one, paid co-ordinator. These co-ordinators do not necessarily work full-time but do provide essential support by co-ordinating volunteer rotas, training and providing support to referrers, volunteers and user families. Three centres did not have paid workers, all three were rurally located centres and all three were run by the WRVS. As WRVS employ a single organiser to manage their contact centre provision this explains the staff composition in these centres. ¹³

3.21 Centres reported varying levels of volunteer support. Volunteer support workers provided a key role in the functioning of centres. Although their roles varied during contact sessions (see later chapters) they typically provided a range of practical and emotional support to user families. The number of volunteers reported ranged from 3 to 30 at any one centre. Where centres drew on a base of more than three volunteers they tended to report organising their staffing through a rota system.

3.22 Further background information on the staff and volunteers providing contact centre services are reported in the findings from earlier research conducted by the Executive ¹⁴.

Factors accounting for variation in provision

3.23 The centres, whilst demonstrating individual diversity along a number of dimensions, did not fall into clear groups. Despite there being few patterns in referral or usage of the centres, certain key factors did appear to account for the range of provision being offered. Staff identified the following factors at the second stage of the research as constraints on the provision or facilities which could be offered to families using their centres:

the level of funding
the level of staffing, specifically centres' ability to recruit and maintain a rota of volunteers
goodwill of host organisations to facilitate sessions on their premises
the physical location of centres and access for families.

Each of these factors will be examined in more detail in later chapters.

REFERRAL PATTERNS

3.24 Families are referred to contact centres through a variety of different routes. As this was another potential area of difference between centres, the mapping exercise asked centre staff to describe the differing ways in which families accessed their centres. Chapter 5 examines in detail the experiences of the families, staff and referrers taking part in the later stages of this research. It is useful to note here however that although families come into contact with centres through a wide variety of sources, the actual service offered by the centres is only offered on the basis of the parents' definition of their need and their agreement to the rules of the centre.

3.25 Staff identified a range of referral sources:

courts - including referrals from solicitors and orders imposed by Sheriffs ¹⁵
social worker referrals
referrals from mediation services
health worker referrals
self referral (sometimes prompted, or informed, by the advice of professionals in the above groups)

3.26 Centres reported different levels for the various types of referral. For instance, some centres had experienced few, if any, self-referrals whilst others reported higher frequencies of self-referral. From the audit findings it was difficult to establish the factors accounting for the varying patterns of referral. Despite this, later chapters will demonstrate that individual patterns of referral were found to be closely tied to a range of factors relating to the awareness of local professionals about the facilities offered by centres in their area and by the existence of strong referral sources such as Family Mediation and their local style of working. For example, an area with Sheriffs who are highly aware of the existence and role of the local contact centre might display greater referrals than an area with lower awareness amongst Sheriffs. Similarly, some mediation services prefer to refer families directly to contact centres, others encourage self-referral.

USER PROFILES

3.27 The profile of families in transition making use of child contact centres is critical in understanding both the expectations and experiences of those families. This section draws upon previous research and the findings from this study in describing the characteristics of user families.

Findings from the contact centre audit

3.28 Research ¹⁶ conducted by the Executive established the following characteristics of user families:

75% of families were referred through solicitors and / or the court process
around half of the families had court orders in place, the majority of which referred to contact arrangements
20% of families using centres reported allegations of domestic abuse, predominantly these allegations involved a contact father abusing a resident mother.
Drug and alcohol misuse and mental problems were not uncommon.
the families were almost exclusively white, equally likely to have been cohabiting as married, and the majority of children using the centres were aged 0-5 years old
contact parents were predominantly male whilst resident parents were predominantly female.

3.29 The audit at stage one sought to update and extend the information obtained through the previous research. By doing this it was hoped that the research team could ensure that the families selected for later stages of the research reflected the widest diversity of users as possible.

3.30 Evidence from the contact centre audit confirmed the existing profile of user families, revealing that a typical user family would be a resident mother and contact father, both white, with one or more children aged between 0-5 years old.

3.31 Despite the predominance of these characteristics, centres reported how user profiles occasionally varied. Exceptions to the dominant pattern included: resident fathers and contact mothers (generally reported as forming fewer than 10% of cases), regular contact being made by other family members with children (for example with grandparents or aunts and uncles), and finally, occasional 'one off' contact visits with step parents, older siblings, aunts and uncles or foster parents.

3.32 Similarly, whilst the profile of user families was mostly white, several centres reported that they had current experience of user families from minority ethnic groups. One centre in the north-east of Scotland reported up to 50% of its user families as being from minority ethnic groups, however such high levels of minority ethnic group use were exceptional. Although centres with minority ethnic user families were included in the research, success in achieving interviews with these user families was limited. Therefore, there is clear scope for future research looking specifically at the experiences and expectations of user families from minority ethnic groups, although the practical difficulties of locating these users have been highlighted by this study.

3.33 The nature of families using the centres reported from Phase one research suggested that a significant number of families in transition were affected by drug, alcohol or mental health issues (whether ongoing or previous to centre use). The audit again sought to confirm this portrait of centre usage. Centres reported that a significant number of their cases involved either drug or alcohol abuse on the part of the contact parent. However, as centres do not routinely screen families for these issues prior to contact commencing, these findings reflect workers' perceptions of the issues faced by user families rather than statistical evidence. Centres were divided about the extent to which user families had experienced domestic violence or child abuse in their case background. Differences in reporting this as a characteristic of user families can be explained by the range of views about whether or not centres are able, or wish to provide, any form of 'supervised' contact. These issues will be fully explored in Chapter 3.

3.34 Once the mapping exercise was complete a smaller number of centres were purposively selected for inclusion in the later stages of qualitative research with staff, referrers and professionals. The final sections of this chapter provide a profile of the user families who took part in this stage of the research.

Families in transition - a profile of participating families

3.35 The families who participated in the qualitative stages of this study were selected to represent the diversity of contact centre users. As the sample was purposively chosen to ensure diversity the following description of the sample profile holds no statistical significance. In the following sections we describe the socio-demographic characteristics of these families, the circumstances surrounding their use of the contact centre and other key issues related to contact between children and their non-resident parent.

Socio-demographic profile

3.36 The families involved in the research were in all but two cases white. Whilst efforts were made to recruit minority ethnic group users there was limited success. Parents ranged in age from 28 years to 45 years old. The children of these families ranged in age from under one year to 16 years old. Those children interviewed for the research were aged from 7 to 15 years old. With the exception of two families the resident parent was female. All contact parents involved in the research were male. The families using centres had experienced different forms of family formation. Although predominantly previously married or cohabiting, some families had not experienced significant periods when the entire family (both families and children) had lived together as a family unit.

3.37 Resident parents' current family circumstances varied, they included those living alone with their children, those living in second families (both married and cohabiting) and those residing with extended family networks. In the case of those parents living in second families some had had further children whilst others had not. Similarly, contact parents were living in a variety of different circumstances ranging from those living alone to those who had formed new relationships; some had become parents with new partners since their first family had ended.

3.38 The children for whom contact was being disputed ranged in age from 5 months to 16 years old. Some of these children had more than one sibling who was also currently, or had previously, been the subject of a contact dispute.

3.39 Parents differed in their employment circumstances. They ranged from those currently in full-time employment or education to those who were unemployed. Those parents not working were unemployed for a variety of reasons. Childcare pressures were a key factor shaping employment experiences amongst resident parents of younger children. In these cases parents either chose not to work in order to parent their children until they reached school age or faced childcare obstacles when seeking employment. Childcare difficulties were described as particularly acute for those parents living alone with more than one child under the age of five. Other factors accounting for unemployment amongst contact and resident parents included: disability, injury or ill-health, local labour market barriers and personal barriers (such as drug or alcohol addiction, histories of criminal offence).

3.40 Housing circumstances also differed. Families included in the research had a variety of tenure from home ownership, private rental and social housing (both local authority and voluntary sector). Generally, resident parents and their children lived in the immediate vicinity (i.e. within five miles) of the contact centre they made use of. Exceptionally, this was not the case. These families tended to be those where previous instances of violence or abuse meant the resident parent preferred for the contact parent to have contact away from their current address. In some circumstances, acrimony between the contact parent and the wider extended family meant that contact was best undertaken away from the children's home locality. For those resident parents living in rural communities, a local absence of contact centre provision sometimes meant that considerable travelling was required to reach the nearest contact centre.

3.41 While a minority of resident parents travelled considerable distances to the centre, it was more common for the contact parent to be the one that travelled. This was particularly true for those who had moved away from their original place of residence following the breakdown of their relationship, whether to find work or for other reasons.

Previous family circumstances and issues leading to family breakdown

3.42 The families involved in this stage of the study had experienced a broad range of family circumstances. Not all parents were willing to discuss the specific features of the breakdown of their relationship with their ex-partners or, in the case of contact parents, with their children, which reflects the high level of sensitivity surrounding this issue. As the research was specifically focused on the experiences of contact centre use it was not appropriate to probe issues relating to family breakdown where parents displayed hesitancy or reluctance, unless there was clear relevance in providing a context for the decision to use a contact centre. Nevertheless, some parents were prepared to describe the background to their relationship and contact difficulties.

3.43 Previous relationships between the two parents differed. It was common for parents to have had long-standing relationships (whether married or cohabiting) lasting over three years, generally these involved the parents and children living together as a family unit. More exceptionally, the parents had had fleeting relationships and had never formed a residential family unit either before or after the birth of their child.

3.44 Factors attributed to the eventual breakdown of the relationship reflected a wide range of issues:

infidelity, one or other partner building a new relationship
financial difficulties relating to a range of circumstances resulting from e.g. redundancy, gambling addiction, repossession
emotional distance developing between the parents
physical or emotional abuse from one parent to the other
fears or experience of emotional of physical abuse by one parent towards the children

History of child contact arrangements within families

3.45 The families included in the study were reflective of the diverse, and sometimes fluctuating, nature of child contact arrangements. As stated in the previous chapter, child contact arrangements can be placed on a continuum from unsupported, negotiated contact to court ordered supervised contact. The families who participated in this research reflected this diversity. Patterns of child contact found amongst these families during the transition typically included the following range:

initial unsupported contact followed by a range of different forms of supported or court ordered contact
no contact immediately following the relationship failure followed by supported contact
initial supported contact with varying outcomes ranging from unsupported contact to cessation of contact

3.46 Families who began with unsupported contact which then broke down described a series of reasons for the cessation of unsupported contact:

ongoing, or new, animosity between parents
ongoing, or new, resident parent concerns about the safety (both physical and emotional) of children during contact visits. Often these related to concerns about the contact parent being under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the visits. Other concerns included apprehensions about the parenting skills of the non-resident parent or fears relating to the mental health of the contact parent
geographical factors: for some families unsupported contact broke down as a result of geographical difference between the location of contact parents and their children. This was a particular feature for contact parents who had moved away from their original homes to seek work or to remove themselves from local issues such as neighbourhood or family hostility.

3.47 Other families started with supported contact either through the court system, family mediation or other referrals. At the time of interview this supported contact was continuing for some, whilst in other families contact had ceased or contact had progressed to unsupported contact. The cases included in the study further underline the unpredictability of contact cases. One obvious pattern in contact centre use was the manner in which families left supported contact for unsupported contact only to return several months later following a breakdown of relationships within the family. As a result the duration of time that families had been using contact centres was variable. The longest reported period of sustained use without breaks in use was six years, the shortest five months. Yet other families had been using centres on and off for almost a decade, beginning when the child was very young.

The range of outcomes in contact cases will be discussed further in Chapter 7.

SUMMARY

3.48 This chapter has provided a profile of contact centre provision and usage in Scotland at the time of the research.

During the period of this research study there were 28 contact centres in operation across Scotland. The centres are predominantly located in, or near to, urban centres. The majority of centres are located in the Borders or the south, east and west Lothian regions. As a result large areas of the country are not served by contact centres within their local communities; this was particularly true for the upper Western and middle belt of Scotland.
The centres themselves are all led by voluntary organisations or bodies. The largest single provider of contact centres is Family Mediation; other providing organisations include the WRVS and smaller voluntary organisations such as church based organisations and local family support organisations. Centres varied in the length of time they had been providing contact services from less than a year to almost twelve years.
The volume of cases varied between centres (from 1-28) with the highest figures tending to be in the urban centres.
Physical provision varied between centres, some centres offered private rooms for contact while others offered only a shared, open plan venue.
Two main forms of contact were provided - contact within the centre and facilities for exchange or handover for contact sessions outwith the centre. Most contact centre sessions occurred on a Saturday. Centres varied in the extent to which they were able to be flexible in their opening hours to meet user needs (constraints included funding, availability of volunteer staff, and availability of venue).
Contact centres were largely staffed by volunteers during sessions. Nevertheless, almost all centres employed one, or more than one, paid co-ordinator.
Staff identified a range of referral sources:
- courts - including referrals from solicitors and orders imposed by Sheriffs
- social worker referrals
- referrals from mediation services
- health worker referrals
- self referral (sometimes prompted, or informed, by the advice of professionals in the above groups)
The most common referrers to all centres were the courts and / or solicitors. Centres differed in the extent to which cases came to them through other routes. For example, one of the rural centres did not allow self-referrals, and social workers only played a part in referring in one centre (again a rural centre).
The families involved in the study had experienced a broad range of family circumstances. Domestic abuse, drug and alcohol misuse and mental problems were not uncommon.
The majority of children involved in contact centre cases were young (aged under 5 years).

Contact parents were predominantly male, while resident parents were predominantly female.

« Previous | Contents | Next »

The Scottish Government

Research

On this page: